This isn't even the same thing. It's much more scientifically justifiable to believe in creationism as opposed to evolution than to believe in a young earth. I mean, it kind of has to be a sort of punctuated creationism, where God creates new creatures at different times. Certainly not in a week. But the reality is that as much as they try to dismiss the argument, evolution still relies on the assumption that macroevolution occurs. Transition species remain a problem.

To be clear, I believe in evolution. But it's on much shakier ground scientifically than the age of the Earth.

Same reason why these people think the Earth can't possibly be more than a few thousand years old - everything in the Bible has to be taken totally literally at face value. If the Bible says God created the Earth and all its creatures in 6 days, that's how it happened. He created EVERY creature, and clearly there was no time for anything to evolve in under a week...

Also, this thread started as a poll to determine who was more out of touch with reality, bis or swamp. Based on his impressive body of work, swamp took an early lead, but like a political candidate suddenly flush with unlimited cash, bis has worked relentlessly to turn the tide.

That's right, anyone who disagrees with the mainstream opinion is "out of touch with reality."

This is just another example of the ignorant BS you people spew when someone dares to disagree with the popular opinion that you want to defend. You launch personal attacks on anyone who stands up and dares to use critical thinking skills and comes to a conclusion different than what you think is "right".

How dare anyone disagree with your mainstream ideas? They must be (insert name or insult here). Now let's all rally around one another and bully them with more insults because we are in the majority and are therefore right and they are wrong. *rolls eyes*

But the reality is that as much as they try to dismiss the argument, evolution still relies on the assumption that macroevolution occurs. Transition species remain a problem.

Whoa. Slam on the brakes. Did dahs just admit there are problems with a mainstream scientific theory (namely evolution)? I believe he did.

Perhaps there is hope that someone in this post full of ignorant bullying attempts can see things from a perspective other than the mainstream.

We could have a whole entirely different discussion on evolution if you'd like, but it would need to be in another thread, and I would not be responding to anyone who can't refrain from making personal attacks (and I haven't seen very many of you exhibit the ability to disagree without launching personal attacks, so it might be a very short discussion).

Scientific theories become mainstream if there is a preponderance of credible scientific evidence that intelligent people can critically review and agree that said theory makes much more sense than competing theories with less credible evidence.

Now, one can take the point of view that MAYBE there is a possibility that a non-mainstream theory, such as a young earth theory, could in fact be correct, despite all the evidence against it. And that's fine.

But to say that a young earth theory is "equally likely" as an old earth theory, is silly. To argue that shows a questionable ability to understand evidence and a dubious ability to think critically.

And it's not just your non-existant argument in favor of a young earth theory; it's the sum of all your arguments about science, economics, etc., combined with your Narcissistic personality disorder, that makes you "out of touch with reality".

Scientific theories become mainstream if there is a preponderance of credible scientific evidence that intelligent people can critically review and agree that said theory makes much more sense than competing theories with less credible evidence.

This isn't always true. I gave many examples before of mainstream theories which were later proven completely false. There is no reason to believe this couldn't happen again with more recent mainstream theories.

Now, one can take the point of view that MAYBE there is a possibility that a non-mainstream theory, such as a young earth theory, could in fact be correct, despite all the evidence against it. And that's fine. But to say that a young earth theory is "equally likely" as an old earth theory, is silly. To argue that shows a questionable ability to understand evidence and a dubious ability to think critically.

WRONG.

Anyone is free to think anything they wish.

Not agreeing with the mainstream doesn't mean they are wrong.

Not agreeing with the mainstream doesn't mean they can't think critically - in fact, in many cases, it shows they are thinking MORE critically than many of those who blindly agree with the mainstream.

Launching personal attacks on those who disagree with you or your mainstream ideas is completely ignorant, not to mention disrespectful to the rights of others to have their own opinion.

You can disagree, but to call anyone names or say they don't understand evidence and can't think critically is bulls***.

If you disagree with me, fine, I don't care. But I guarantee you I've thought more critically about this than you ever have and still believe as I do, and if you don't like it, go **** yourself because I'm sick of your BS bullying tactics.

And it's not just your non-existant argument in favor of a young earth theory; it's the sum of all your arguments about science, economics, etc., combined with your Narcissistic personality disorder, that makes you "out of touch with reality".

You're just incredibly frustrated because you disagree and desperately want to refute what I have to say but you can't come up with effective arguments against me.

Your next step is to try to bully me with name calling and various insults while rallying the troops who agree with you to do the same.

When even that didn't work and I didn't give up like so many people no doubt do, you'll try to label me as "out of touch with reality" or some other made up horse **** all because you're frustrated that you can't argue effectively and never could.

You suck at creating an effective argument so you resort to childish tactics and it's a load of ****.

I've got my opinion and you have yours. If you don't like it, then go **** yourself, because I don't care.

Posted by bistiza on 1/17/2013 9:49:00 AM (view original):I'm just telling it like it is.

Grow up and realize everyone who disagrees with you isn't stupid or lacking in critical thinking skills or any other BS insult you want to hurl their way.

Put more bluntly as I already did: I have my opinion and you have yours. If you don't like it, go **** yourself, because I don't care.

You're not just disagreeing with tec or me or dahs. You're disagreeing with every credible scientist on earth, including the entire fields of biology, geology, chemistry, and physics. Now, it's possible ALL those people are wrong, but you'd need to be able to show some pretty compelling evidence, which you aren't able to do.

I'm not even participating in the actual argument of "old earth" vs. "young earth".

My problem with bis in this thread is his automatic dismissing of anybody who believes in the old earth theory as having come to that conclusion solely because it is the mainstream belief. He seems not not give any credit at all to anybody but himself for being able to understand the evidence that exists and come to a decision themselves. Apparently, he is the only person in these forums with that skill.

He also argues entirely in bad faith, not just here but in other discussions. He insists that he has provided evidence that supports his arguments, but refuses to refer anybody to it. "I've already posted it, go back and read it yourself, I'm not going to repeat myself" is his refrain. Yet nobody can seem to find his alleged supporting evidence.

Then he plays the victim card. Everybody is shitting all over him as a defensive reaction because they can't compete with his superior intellect and debating skills. Yet, he's not arrogant.